HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

********* who made up Hartnell/Carter rumor was wrong (obviously)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-25-2009, 09:42 AM
  #26
RIPRichardsCarter
Registered User
 
RIPRichardsCarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
A court case would just get this guy more publicity.
Doesn't matter now that everyone knows his name, no one will trust his information ever again.

RIPRichardsCarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 12:04 PM
  #27
bstreetbully
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
The lawsuit will go nowhere (as an aside, it'd be a libel suit and wouldn't really have anything to do with revealing sources, but whatever), but the doucheknob will still have to hire a lawyer to make it go away.
Libel suits against journalists have EVERYTHING to do with sources. Unless the author claims firsthand knowledge, and identifies a source in the story, successful claims for libel rarely, if ever, succeed.

Most freelance journalists and bloggers also carry libel insurance anyway so hiring a lawyer or paying an unlikely judgment surely isn't keeping this guy up at night.

If you saw the story he posted about the rumor, it contained the following.....

The first sentence included the words.."bizarre rumor" and in the article the phrases “possible affair” and “if it is true” were also used.

Brennan was not the first person to post this rumor on the internet. Various other message boards and sites had it up weeks before he mentioned it. The Flyer's would never be able to even make a prima facie case for libel. If Brennan was the originator of the rumor, and internet archives prove he wasn't, there is no case.

2 Season tickets for next year says the Flyer's, the Hartnell's, or Carter, never even file a lawsuit?


Last edited by bstreetbully: 12-25-2009 at 12:44 PM.
bstreetbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 12:06 PM
  #28
RIPRichardsCarter
Registered User
 
RIPRichardsCarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstreetbully View Post
Most freelance journalists and bloggers also carry libel insurance anyway so hiring a lawyer or paying an unlikely judgment surely isn't keeping this guy up at night.
Doubt a college kid who claims "he didn't know anyone even read his blog" has libel insurance.

RIPRichardsCarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 12:33 PM
  #29
bstreetbully
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quacker912 View Post
Doubt a college kid who claims "he didn't know anyone even read his blog" has libel insurance.
Even if he doesn't have a libel policy, most homeowners policies contain libel coverage, whether it is his own policy if he owns a residence or his parents because he resides there. Even if he attend school and lives away from home during the semesters, he would be covered under his parents policy as long as he is under 25 years of age and a full time student.

This was also part of a school project so their insurance policy could also be in play.

bstreetbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 01:50 PM
  #30
Slowbro
Registered User
 
Slowbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
i'll play devil's advocate... just because they say it is false doesn't mean it is.. don't be so naive. this scenario could happen. it probably didn't, but to blindly believe it just because hartnell and carter say its false is naive. there is a possibility this kid has a source inside the organization and it is possible there is bad blood between the two players, if not to this extent.

Slowbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 03:08 PM
  #31
captainpaxil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstreetbully View Post
Libel suits against journalists have EVERYTHING to do with sources. Unless the author claims firsthand knowledge, and identifies a source in the story, successful claims for libel rarely, if ever, succeed.

Most freelance journalists and bloggers also carry libel insurance anyway so hiring a lawyer or paying an unlikely judgment surely isn't keeping this guy up at night.

If you saw the story he posted about the rumor, it contained the following.....

The first sentence included the words.."bizarre rumor" and in the article the phrases “possible affair” and “if it is true” were also used.

Brennan was not the first person to post this rumor on the internet. Various other message boards and sites had it up weeks before he mentioned it. The Flyer's would never be able to even make a prima facie case for libel. If Brennan was the originator of the rumor, and internet archives prove he wasn't, there is no case.

2 Season tickets for next year says the Flyer's, the Hartnell's, or Carter, never even file a lawsuit?
im pretty sure thats false. the part that matters is "circling the room" its not where it was 1st published but where it was introduced to the people mentioned in the story. brennan claims a "source close to the team" who would be in fact the originator of the rumor.

so i guess the guy wants to be a gossip journalist cuz he obviously has no future in sports now.

captainpaxil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 03:19 PM
  #32
Bob Clarke Fan Club
Registered User
 
Bob Clarke Fan Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triqsix View Post
i'll play devil's advocate... just because they say it is false doesn't mean it is.. don't be so naive. this scenario could happen. it probably didn't, but to blindly believe it just because hartnell and carter say its false is naive. there is a possibility this kid has a source inside the organization and it is possible there is bad blood between the two players, if not to this extent.


You go ahead and believe the blogger and I'll believe the people who live in the real world. Seriously

Bob Clarke Fan Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 06:04 PM
  #33
bstreetbully
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainpaxil View Post
the part that matters is "circling the room"
Absolutely incorrect. Try reading the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 may or may not apply in this case, however it speaks to immunity from liability for exactly what you claim to be "circling the room".

Quote:
Originally Posted by captainpaxil View Post
its not where it was 1st published but where it was introduced to the people mentioned in the story.
Incorrect again. Where it is first published has everything to do with civil liability. Again read Section 230. 50 different news organizations could go with a false story that was originally put out by the AP and the only one that is exposed to liability is the AP because they first published it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captainpaxil View Post
brennan claims a "source close to the team" who would be in fact the originator of the rumor.
Where did he say he "broke" this rumor? Are you assuming because his source is close to the team that Brennan "broke" the story? Internet archives already exonerate him as being the first to bring this rumor public.

I've defended over a dozen libel cases in the last 15 years and my clients have never been found guilty. Libel suits are some of the toughest to win as a plaintiff, mostly due to the strong 1ST amendment rights we all enjoy in this country.

Are you an attorney or do you just play one on the internet? Perhaps you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?


Last edited by bstreetbully: 12-25-2009 at 06:12 PM.
bstreetbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 06:10 PM
  #34
bstreetbully
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Clarke Fan Club View Post
You go ahead and believe the blogger and I'll believe the people who live in the real world. Seriously
It was a blogger/gossip columnist that broke the Tiger Woods cheating allegations after the accident, not a major news organization. Tiger was silent on the matter, and didn't admit anything until his voice message was played, the one that he left one of his girls asking her to take her name off of her greeting.

He would probably be denying everything to this day had that tape not been released and you would have been believing the "real world" people and not the organization who first reported it and were RIGHT.

bstreetbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 06:20 PM
  #35
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quacker912 View Post
Doesn't matter now that everyone knows his name, no one will trust his information ever again.
Eklund.

Edit: Also, for the very, very, very naive people who think this guy has to worry about a trial... that's not going to happen. The only thing his lawyer needs to do is produce a single post anywhere on the internet that predates the article or produce any person connected to the Flyers that spread the rumor and, even if that fails, the phrases (like someone mentioned above) of "bizarre rumor"
and "if it were true" really push the boundaries of libel

The blogger may be an ass but he didn't say anything worse than what gets said on every team's board here at HF every single day.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 06:26 PM
  #36
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Calling it: his secret source is Eklund.

Edit: DAMN IT. Just missed it. = (

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 08:33 PM
  #37
Bob Clarke Fan Club
Registered User
 
Bob Clarke Fan Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstreetbully View Post
It was a blogger/gossip columnist that broke the Tiger Woods cheating allegations after the accident, not a major news organization. Tiger was silent on the matter, and didn't admit anything until his voice message was played, the one that he left one of his girls asking her to take her name off of her greeting.

He would probably be denying everything to this day had that tape not been released and you would have been believing the "real world" people and not the organization who first reported it and were RIGHT.



Personally I could care less. As far as I'm concerned, what Tiger does in his life is his business. Life's too short to read gossip about people when it doesn't affect the reader in any way shape or form.
Good on you though, to know that a blogger/gossip columnist broke such an event. They tend to print a lot more **** than they actually dig up. I guess what I'm actually saying is that I don't like digging through **** and rumors to find truth.

Bob Clarke Fan Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 08:38 PM
  #38
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Eklund.

Edit: Also, for the very, very, very naive people who think this guy has to worry about a trial... that's not going to happen. The only thing his lawyer needs to do is produce a single post anywhere on the internet that predates the article or produce any person connected to the Flyers that spread the rumor and, even if that fails, the phrases (like someone mentioned above) of "bizarre rumor"
and "if it were true" really push the boundaries of libel

The blogger may be an ass but he didn't say anything worse than what gets said on every team's board here at HF every single day.
If I'm not mistaken, the Flyers/Carter/the Hartnells have to prove that the blogger knew the rumor was untrue, and beyond that, that his intent in publishing it was willfully malicious. And they have to prove all of this beyond the standard of proof for a normal civil case. For better or worse the US court system values free speech >>>>> possible defamation of character.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 08:43 PM
  #39
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
If I'm not mistaken, the Flyers/Carter/the Hartnells have to prove that the blogger knew the rumor was untrue, and beyond that, that his intent in publishing it was willfully malicious. And they have to prove all of this beyond the standard of proof for a normal civil case. For better or worse the US court system values free speech >>>>> possible defamation of character.
My mom, a NJ attorney, seems to believe that the standards for defamation of character are a little more loose than that.

She told me that it's more a matter of motive of the blogger and the damages for the plaintiffs. If the organization can prove that there was motive and damage then they'll have a good case.

Regardless I doubt this thing goes very far just because of its nature.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 08:55 PM
  #40
KevinLin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,478
vCash: 500
Yeah nothing court related will happen to the blogger. Libel or defamation for a celebrity is impossibly hard in the US.

KevinLin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 09:45 PM
  #41
Beastieboy
Registered User
 
Beastieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 425
vCash: 500
If this rumour has caused Carter's goals to cut in half and the team to lose 14 of 18... could someone please blog a few rumours about Crosby, Malkin, Fleury and Staal and anybody's wife?! Please. Maybe throw a few Devils into the mix too for good measure.

Beastieboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 09:49 PM
  #42
captainpaxil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstreetbully View Post
Absolutely incorrect. Try reading the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 may or may not apply in this case, however it speaks to immunity from liability for exactly what you claim to be "circling the room".



Incorrect again. Where it is first published has everything to do with civil liability. Again read Section 230. 50 different news organizations could go with a false story that was originally put out by the AP and the only one that is exposed to liability is the AP because they first published it.



Where did he say he "broke" this rumor? Are you assuming because his source is close to the team that Brennan "broke" the story? Internet archives already exonerate him as being the first to bring this rumor public.

I've defended over a dozen libel cases in the last 15 years and my clients have never been found guilty. Libel suits are some of the toughest to win as a plaintiff, mostly due to the strong 1ST amendment rights we all enjoy in this country.

Are you an attorney or do you just play one on the internet? Perhaps you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
its my understanding that yes he was the first blogger to publish this story as content and not in a message board or other interactive forum which would fall under section 230. and by stating individual sources and not a hypertext link he placed himself as the original author of it being published.breaking the story. further links later all go back to His site and not one brought up previous. your newspaper example would have the same report by the AP simply reprinted not authored by someone new and attributed to them as such.

my uncle was a crminal attorney and i used to help out around the office alot. im not an attorney and my experience is elswhere in the field but this looks like a case to me

captainpaxil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 10:01 PM
  #43
JDinkalage Morgoone
U of South Flurrida
 
JDinkalage Morgoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Ln.
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 12,003
vCash: 50
I'll just sit here and let the Hartnells and Carter live their own life. If it doesn't go down on the ice/affect their play DIRECTLY (i.e. alcohol issues, drugs) then I don't care. Let them live. Same goes to Tiger Woods. ESPN has turned to TMZ as a source and it literally makes me sick. WHO CARES. LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE.

__________________
"Help was not promised, lovely girl. Only death."
JDinkalage Morgoone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 10:15 PM
  #44
PhillyFan4Ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstreetbully View Post
Absolutely incorrect. Try reading the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 may or may not apply in this case, however it speaks to immunity from liability for exactly what you claim to be "circling the room".



Incorrect again. Where it is first published has everything to do with civil liability. Again read Section 230. 50 different news organizations could go with a false story that was originally put out by the AP and the only one that is exposed to liability is the AP because they first published it.



Where did he say he "broke" this rumor? Are you assuming because his source is close to the team that Brennan "broke" the story? Internet archives already exonerate him as being the first to bring this rumor public.

I've defended over a dozen libel cases in the last 15 years and my clients have never been found guilty. Libel suits are some of the toughest to win as a plaintiff, mostly due to the strong 1ST amendment rights we all enjoy in this country.

Are you an attorney or do you just play one on the internet? Perhaps you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
do you play a dick in real life or just on the internet? your post was informative and insightful right up until you puffed out your chest. the keg committee behind be put it to a vote. you sounded elitest.

PhillyFan4Ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 10:23 PM
  #45
RIPRichardsCarter
Registered User
 
RIPRichardsCarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hextall89 View Post
I'll just sit here and let the Hartnells and Carter live their own life. If it doesn't go down on the ice/affect their play DIRECTLY (i.e. alcohol issues, drugs) then I don't care. Let them live. Same goes to Tiger Woods. ESPN has turned to TMZ as a source and it literally makes me sick. WHO CARES. LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE.
Pretty much.

RIPRichardsCarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 11:23 PM
  #46
bstreetbully
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyFan4Ever View Post
do you play a dick in real life or just on the internet? your post was informative and insightful right up until you puffed out your chest. the keg committee behind be put it to a vote. you sounded elitest.
Sorry if I came across that way, I didn't mean to. I put one of those smiley things at the end of that sentence to convey humor.

Sometimes I overreact a little when people play attorney on message boards. Believe it or not, much damage can occur when people misinterpret legal theory/thoughts in a discussion forum, as legal advice, and apply it to a real life situation.

bstreetbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2009, 11:30 PM
  #47
bstreetbully
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainpaxil View Post
its my understanding that yes he was the first blogger to publish this story as content and not in a message board or other interactive forum which would fall under section 230. and by stating individual sources and not a hypertext link he placed himself as the original author of it being published.breaking the story. further links later all go back to His site and not one brought up previous. your newspaper example would have the same report by the AP simply reprinted not authored by someone new and attributed to them as such.

my uncle was a crminal attorney and i used to help out around the office alot. im not an attorney and my experience is elswhere in the field but this looks like a case to me
Various internet archive sites have already cleared Brennan as being the first to publish this rumor. He even identified it as such and further stated "if it were true" before his mention of the rumor.

I don't see a plaintiff able to make a prima facie case here at all. If the Flyers, Hartnell, or Carter approached our firm, we would honestly not take a case like this at all.

bstreetbully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2009, 12:17 AM
  #48
PhillyFan4Ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstreetbully View Post
Sorry if I came across that way, I didn't mean to. I put one of those smiley things at the end of that sentence to convey humor.

Sometimes I overreact a little when people play attorney on message boards. Believe it or not, much damage can occur when people misinterpret legal theory/thoughts in a discussion forum, as legal advice, and apply it to a real life situation.
its ok we love you anyway. happy boxing day!

PhillyFan4Ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2009, 05:24 AM
  #49
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstreetbully View Post
Sorry if I came across that way, I didn't mean to. I put one of those smiley things at the end of that sentence to convey humor.

Sometimes I overreact a little when people play attorney on message boards. Believe it or not, much damage can occur when people misinterpret legal theory/thoughts in a discussion forum, as legal advice, and apply it to a real life situation.
I'll forgive you if you sign a recommendation letter for law school that I'll type up myself.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2009, 09:35 AM
  #50
TheDrizzle81
Registered User
 
TheDrizzle81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Marlton NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,357
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TheDrizzle81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hextall89 View Post
I'll just sit here and let the Hartnells and Carter live their own life. If it doesn't go down on the ice/affect their play DIRECTLY (i.e. alcohol issues, drugs) then I don't care. Let them live. Same goes to Tiger Woods. ESPN has turned to TMZ as a source and it literally makes me sick. WHO CARES. LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE.
I agree, but to an extent, I think there is SOMETHING thats distracting, and affecting their play on the ice which is why this rumor gained so much traction, especially considering the players in question where the ones playing especially bad. We are all looking for something to hold onto, to use to blame this skid on, and a lot of people, myself included, picked this. It makes sence. And the team/players saying its false (if it is true) doesnt suprise me, why would the team allow a circus grow into a bigger circus. Weather its true or not, I firmly beleive 'SOMETHING" is going on.

TheDrizzle81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.